[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[RFC] Dropping architectures alpha and m68k from the Installation Guide

Now that we have two architectures that are no longer official release 
architectures I've been wondering if we should remove any architecture- 
specific text for them from the Installation Guide.

m68k was dropped as a release architecture for Etch, and alpha is being 
dropped for Squeeze. For m68k the intention was to bring it back as a 
release architecture, but now, over 2 years later, I think we can say 
that's unlikely to happen.

The current situation is that both alpha and m68k are still included in the 
source for the manual, but are not included in official builds and also 
not in the "daily" builds on Alioth. So effectively it is dead text.

I know that the installer still supports m68k (and is even being maintained 
to some extend by Steven Marenka) and that the same may or may not happen 
for alpha, but IMO that's a separate issue.
A fact is that there have been no updates for the manual for either 
architecture for a very long time and that for example any links to images 
in them are incorrect.

The main benefit of removing the architectures is for translators, 
especially for new translations. It would remove 2000+ lines of text which 
would no longer need to be translated (and which probably nobody will ever 
read anyway).

If we do decide on the removal I would try to do it as four separate 
commits for each architecture:
- remove the arch from the English original
- remove the arch from all XML based translations [1]
- remove the arch from the build system
- PO files update, including removal of arch conditions embedded in strings
  (if any)

Doing it this way would still keep open the option of re-including an arch 
later by reverting the first three of those commits.
Of course, there would be some conflicts that would need to be handled and 
a general review and update would be needed, but I expect most text could 
be recovered without too many problems.
For PO-based translations a PO-file merge could be done of the then current 
version with the version just before removal.

Opinions, comments and suggestions welcome.


[1] I expect I can do all changes myself, both for the English original and 
for translations; mostly using a script plus minor manual work for 
remaining bits. So there should be no work needed by translators.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: